Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 965 - bit-tech.net Forums

Tim S · 22nd Mar 2006, 16:00

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200..._ee_965/1.html

RotoSequence · 22nd Mar 2006, 16:07

An Intel actually won in part of the gaming benchmark suite?

Nice review as usual bigz; too bad netburst is being killed off now; Intel's new efforts to tweak the silicon and use minimal power for the clock speeds theyre getting could really have given netburst one last good run against the Athlon 64 - at let us enthusiasts go nuts with the overclocking

Tim S · 22nd Mar 2006, 16:21

on the subject of overclocking - I'm working on it right now

sadffffff · 22nd Mar 2006, 16:37

about the dvd shrink bench, wouldn't it have been better if you ripped the vob files to the hard drive without encoding, then opened the vob files and encoded from there? seems like that bench is more of a motherboard IDE bench than anything.

Tim S · 22nd Mar 2006, 16:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadffffff

about the dvd shrink bench, wouldn't it have been better if you ripped the vob files to the hard drive without encoding, then opened the vob files and encoded from there? seems like that bench is more of a motherboard IDE bench than anything.

We'll be changing some things in the near future and this is one of those things on the list.

sadffffff · 22nd Mar 2006, 16:48

killer

hitman012 · 22nd Mar 2006, 17:32

Good review - looking forward to the overclocking

. It's quite funny that, as Intel are just about to retire NetBurst, they come up with technology capable of curbing its power consumption.

Actually, a small niggle that I have with the charts - it would be helpful if you highlighted the processor being tested in bold on the benchmarks so that it stands out more. Call me lazy, but it's quite difficult to pick out immediately where it sits in relation to its competitors.

Fr4nk · 22nd Mar 2006, 19:24

Nice review guys, typical with the netburst tech

Quote:

Originally Posted by hitman012

Actually, a small niggle that I have with the charts - it would be helpful if you highlighted the processor being tested in bold on the benchmarks so that it stands out more. Call me lazy, but it's quite difficult to pick out immediately where it sits in relation to its competitors.

I'd also have to agree, I found it quite hard to justify what cpu was what.

Temo Vryce · 22nd Mar 2006, 19:25

I love seeing independent test like these. I know that they are unbiased and AMD still kicks but. This test almost had me thinking that I might have to purchase an INTEL for my next major system upgrade, but AMD is still king of the pile. Keep up the great work guys.

LAGMonkey · 22nd Mar 2006, 21:53

Nice review....but not to nit pick but at the bottom of page 5 when your talking about F.E.A.R.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIT-tech

The group bunches together when the game starts to become GPU limited at higher resolutions with the three Athlon 64 FX processors returning an average of 64 frames per second. The Pentium Extreme Edition 965 performed the same as its older brother, along with the majority of the other processors tested here with an average of 63 fps.

shouldnt that be CPU?

speedfreek · 22nd Mar 2006, 22:14

Im unimpressed, I didnt expect to see anything decent until cornroll or whatever its called comes out. When does it come out?

What temps is that chip running at?

Tim S · 22nd Mar 2006, 22:15

nope, should be GPU limited (GPU limited = higher resolutions and more strain placed on the graphics subsystem - i.e. resolutions closer to what you're likely to use without being completely graphics limited)

LAGMonkey · 22nd Mar 2006, 22:34

Oh cool, ta for clearing that on up

I must have just gotten confused.

dream caster · 23rd Mar 2006, 04:56

Quote:

from article
read on to see the first benchmark with an Intel beating an Athlon in ages...

A very catchy but rather untrue sentence.

geek1017 · 23rd Mar 2006, 08:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by dream caster

A very catchy but rather untrue sentence.

keep chasing that dream

Stephen Brooks · 24th Mar 2006, 02:00

Why, on the last page, is the FX-55 beating the FX-60?

geek1017 · 24th Mar 2006, 03:14

single core vs dual core
you'll also notice the 3700 or 4000 beating the X2 chips at some tasks or the single core P4 beating the dual core.

Tim S · 24th Mar 2006, 08:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedfreek

Im unimpressed, I didnt expect to see anything decent until cornroll or whatever its called comes out. When does it come out?

What temps is that chip running at?

it runs at about 53 deg C ful load, compared to 65+ on the 955

Stephen Brooks · 24th Mar 2006, 12:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by geek1017

single core vs dual core
you'll also notice the 3700 or 4000 beating the X2 chips at some tasks or the single core P4 beating the dual core.

At the same clock speed? The FX-60 is just two FX-55s stuck together. I could understand the FX-57 beating the FX-60, but not the 55 beating the 60!

In fact that pattern is repeated throughout FEAR and Far Cry. Whoever programmed the "multi-threading" in those games deserves a wooden spoon of some sort

Tim S · 24th Mar 2006, 12:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Brooks

At the same clock speed? The FX-60 is just two FX-55s stuck together. I could understand the FX-57 beating the FX-60, but not the 55 beating the 60!

In fact that pattern is repeated throughout FEAR and Far Cry. Whoever programmed the "multi-threading" in those games deserves a wooden spoon of some sort

Certainly where multi-threading is concerned in Far Cry, I don't think there is any... F.E.A.R. should show performance benefits with dual cores though...

22nd Mar 2006, 16:00	#1
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 965 http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200..._ee_965/1.html __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

22nd Mar 2006, 16:07	#2
RotoSequence Lazy Lurker Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: 'States Posts: 4,529	An Intel actually won in part of the gaming benchmark suite? Nice review as usual bigz; too bad netburst is being killed off now; Intel's new efforts to tweak the silicon and use minimal power for the clock speeds theyre getting could really have given netburst one last good run against the Athlon 64 - at let us enthusiasts go nuts with the overclocking __________________ Technology Schmecnology

22nd Mar 2006, 16:21	#3
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	on the subject of overclocking - I'm working on it right now __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

22nd Mar 2006, 17:32	#7
hitman012 What is a Dremel!? Moderator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Bristol / London Posts: 4,811	Good review - looking forward to the overclocking . It's quite funny that, as Intel are just about to retire NetBurst, they come up with technology capable of curbing its power consumption. Actually, a small niggle that I have with the charts - it would be helpful if you highlighted the processor being tested in bold on the benchmarks so that it stands out more. Call me lazy, but it's quite difficult to pick out immediately where it sits in relation to its competitors. __________________ "Nothing is more practical than a good theory" - Kurt Lewin

22nd Mar 2006, 22:14	#11
speedfreek Ultramodder Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: SE Wisconsin (us) Posts: 1,439	Im unimpressed, I didnt expect to see anything decent until cornroll or whatever its called comes out. When does it come out? What temps is that chip running at? __________________ New Rig, Quad Core and 8800 baby! Now with 6gb of RAM and a nice even 2tb now my server\|Athlon 64 3700(2.64ghz)\|7800gs\|2gb XMS 2-3-3-6\|2tb+ total HD space... In raid\|I have a problem. New Laptop: HP EliteBook, its fast!

22nd Mar 2006, 16:37	#4
sadffffff Hypermodder Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: sadffffff Posts: 676	about the dvd shrink bench, wouldn't it have been better if you ripped the vob files to the hard drive without encoding, then opened the vob files and encoded from there? seems like that bench is more of a motherboard IDE bench than anything.

22nd Mar 2006, 16:48	#6
sadffffff Hypermodder Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: sadffffff Posts: 676	killer

22nd Mar 2006, 19:25	#9
Temo Vryce Minimodder Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Otttawa Posts: 20	I love seeing independent test like these. I know that they are unbiased and AMD still kicks but. This test almost had me thinking that I might have to purchase an INTEL for my next major system upgrade, but AMD is still king of the pile. Keep up the great work guys.

22nd Mar 2006, 22:15	#12
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	nope, should be GPU limited (GPU limited = higher resolutions and more strain placed on the graphics subsystem - i.e. resolutions closer to what you're likely to use without being completely graphics limited) __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

22nd Mar 2006, 22:34	#13
LAGMonkey Group 7 error Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Canada/Saudi Posts: 1,449	Oh cool, ta for clearing that on up I must have just gotten confused. __________________ ---------------LAG out!--------------- http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com 100% Brainless]

24th Mar 2006, 02:00	#16
Stephen Brooks Minimodder Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: INTERNET Posts: 32	Why, on the last page, is the FX-55 beating the FX-60?

24th Mar 2006, 03:14	#17
geek1017 Hypermodder Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Uonuma-Shi, Niigata-ken Posts: 635	single core vs dual core you'll also notice the 3700 or 4000 beating the X2 chips at some tasks or the single core P4 beating the dual core. __________________ Thought I'd put something here. Apparently I'm 47.53452% geek I expected more